ReviewClinical and translational science2024
Use cases of registry-based randomized controlled trials-A review of the registries' contributions and constraints.
Review in Clinical and translational science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Cross-Sectional Survey of Evidence Needs for Medicinal Products in Europe With a Focus on Real-World Evidence.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2026Article
- Mohs Surgery vs. Wide Local Excision for Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer: Comparing Recurrence Rates, Economic Value, and Aesthetic Outcomes.Journal of cancer science and clinical therapeutics · 2026Article
- New Zealand Electronic Health Data for Cardiovascular Research: A Review.Clinical epidemiology · 2026Review
- Use cases of registry-based randomized controlled trials-A review of the registries' contributions and constraints.Clinical and translational science · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Registry-based randomized controlled trials (RRCTs) can combine the advantages of registries with those of randomization. This review aimed to expand the current knowledge on RRCT utilization and implementation by providing a comprehensive overview of RRCT use cases. A targeted literature search was conducted through July 2023 to identify articles on RRCTs. Information regarding the RRCT characteristics, their utilization, and the registries' contributions and the constraints faced was extracted. Descriptive statistics were used. We identified 102 RRCTs in 110 publications. RRCTs were mostly performed for the assessment of medical devices or surgical/clinical procedures (n = 45), followed by drugs (n = 30). More than half of the RRCTs were conducted in the Nordic countries (n = 58) and the most used registry types were health service registries/administrative health data (n = 63), followed by disease registries (n = 46). Approximately half of the RRCTs (n = 53) utilized additional data sources aside from registry data. The contribution of a registry to the RRCT was mostly for data collection and study follow-up (n = 90-92), followed by patient recruitment (n = 56-61), and randomization (n = 28-38), with varying levels of transparency in reporting. We collated author-reported constraints related to the used registries into four overarching themes, that is, data availability and completeness, data quality, representativeness, and registry infrastructure and accessibility. This review shows that RRCTs are already used in different domains and geographic regions. Guidelines on structured and transparent reporting of RRCT methods and the optimal use are, however, needed to inform decision-making by health authorities and to reach their full potential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.